The Hunter.

P

Pertinax

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Anyone seen this film? I can't find a previous thread about it though it may have been discussed somewhere.

Modern fictional story about a hunter who is sent on a mission to Tasmania in search of the 'last' Thylacine- which he finally finds and promptly shoots. All very far fetched but great to see the Tasmanian scenery again, and overall, setting aside the fictional aspect, I thought it was quite well done, but I am not sure what message it sends out....:confused: Comments?
 
My ultra-short review: A moody, atmospheric movie with a grim performance from Willem Dafoe. The Tasmanian scenery is spectacular and the story is slowly paced but mysterious. I watch two movies a week all year long and I'd give "The Hunter" a solid "B" letter grade.
 
Never heard of it before, but if there is an audience for people who think a satisfying ending to a film about searching for a surviving population of an extinct taxon is for the "hero" to exterminate the species once and for all, presumably with the message that causing extinctions is a good thing..... I don't care to know the audience :p
 
TeaLovingDave said:
Never heard of it before, but if there is an audience for people who think a satisfying ending to a film about searching for a surviving population of an extinct taxon is for the "hero" to exterminate the species once and for all, presumably with the message that causing extinctions is a good thing..... I don't care to know the audience :p
Click to expand...

That wasn't the reason for killing the animal. Watch the movie again.
 
gerenuk said:
That wasn't the reason for killing the animal. Watch the movie again.
Click to expand...

I can't watch the movie again when I have not seen it once! :p

As noted above, I've never heard of the film before and so was commenting based on what Pertinax told us.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
I can't watch the movie again when I have not seen it once! :p

As noted above, I've never heard of the film before and so was commenting based on what Pertinax told us.
Click to expand...

I omitted to say 'the hunter' was acting for a pharmacuetical company who wanted to obtain some special ingredient the Thylacine produced to kill its prey(fictional of course) so his mission was to kill it in order to get this.

I noticed a statement in the credits about 'the use of traps etc being illegal' but I do wonder about the overall message the film portrayed- rather like the one the film 'The grey' did for Wolves. I found it an interesting film nonetheless.
 
I saw it in 2012...or early 2013, I can't remember. It was on dvd. I thought it made all Tasmanians out to be redneck inbreds. (Waiting for comments from mainland Australians on here :p). A pretty moody movie. I can't say I either liked nor disliked it.

TLD: the reason he shoots the thylacine is to stop more hunters from coming in to hunt them. Or something like that. It didn't really make sense in the end.
 
Chlidonias said:
TLD: the reason he shoots the thylacine is to stop more hunters from coming in to hunt them. Or something like that. It didn't really make sense in the end.
Click to expand...

Yes, his attitude had changed by the end of the film and he formed a sort of empathy with it- but not enough to just leave it alone when he finally caught up with it....:rolleyes:
 
Can't say I plan to watch it anytime soon, then.

Chlidonias said:
TLD: the reason he shoots the thylacine is to stop more hunters from coming in to hunt them. Or something like that. It didn't really make sense in the end.
Click to expand...

The thylacine may be extinct, but Chlidonias lives! :)
 
Knowing you, you'll probably still be wandering around somewhere in six months!
 
zooboy28 said:
Here is a thread: http://www.zoochat.com/183/thylacine-horror-movie-256605/

I haven't seen it, but I'd like to, sounds interesting at least.
Click to expand...

I must have looked at that thread before as I deleted a post on it when I was a Mod. There isn't much to add from it, though Pygathrix' comments are pretty similar to my own. I agree with Chlidonias(?) comment that Tasmanians were portrayed as Rednecks but unfortunately that's a stereotype which is portrayed in most films about people living in remote locations.
 
*Spoilers to follow for the book*

Personally I really liked the film. Despite the fact that on the surface it's about a man looking for a thylacine the tiger is really largely incidental to the main themes of the film. It's much more about the Hunter's internal journey, and the idea that things in the wider natural world are essentially defenseless against human avarice. I know this you see because I went to art school.

The reason he shoots the thylacine is because he knows that it's doomed either way and by killing it himself at least its persecutors won't profit by it. Fair play and I have to say if I saw a tiger that looked like that and I had a gun I'd shoot it too, it was dreadful.

In Julia Leigh's original story there are a lot more loose ends and a lot less traditional plot devices to drive the story. Also the Hunter's character is less sympathetic and more mechanical. The humanisation process seen as being completed in the film stops after the fire (which is purely accidental in the book, as there is never any mention of a second hunter). And instead of thwarting his employers he just robotically kills the tiger and sends them the bits, before presumably returning to his old existence after briefly almost seeing how the other half live.

That said, and despite how well received the book was and how the film tended to simplify the story, I vastly preferred the latter even though, as I say, I went to art school and own two polo neck jumpers.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, he shouldn't have killed the thylacine. If the animal was doomed in the wild, it would have been cloned, though for profit, and live in captivity. Why not shooting a tiger into the leg so it won't run away? :) living cells are better than dead ones and surely better than ashes.
If the movie's events could have happened in reality, I would call this 'hunter' a bUstard.
 
Elephas Maximus said:
Anyway, he shouldn't have killed the thylacine. If the animal was doomed in the wild, it would have been cloned, though for profit, and live in captivity. Why not shooting a tiger into the leg so it won't run away? :) living cells are better than dead ones and surely better than ashes.
If the movie's events could have happened in reality, I would call this 'hunter' a bUstard.
Click to expand...

Watch the movie or read the book. The company that hired main character didn't need a live specimen nor did they have any reason to want a live specimen of a thylacine - only its genetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top